Make n"none of the above" a valid candidate. If it gets more thanx%, remove everyone, hold a new election. Rince and repeat until you get a clear winner.
The real solution is a multi-candidate system and then proportional representation. The radicals would never get in then because there isn’t actually that many people who support them, but when there’s only two options (or effectively only two options such as in the UK) you have to pick one or the other, or not vote. So normal people end up voting for insane mad man who shouldn’t be in charge of a light switch, simply because there’s no better option.
Make n"none of the above" a valid candidate. If it gets more thanx%, remove everyone, hold a new election. Rince and repeat until you get a clear winner.
If that were gonna work, third party candidates would get way more than they do, since that’s effectively what voting for them is.
The real solution is a multi-candidate system and then proportional representation. The radicals would never get in then because there isn’t actually that many people who support them, but when there’s only two options (or effectively only two options such as in the UK) you have to pick one or the other, or not vote. So normal people end up voting for insane mad man who shouldn’t be in charge of a light switch, simply because there’s no better option.
No. Cause if they win they actually win and I’m really not sure I actually want Russian friend, or Kennedy but not really.
A “none of the above” option that sends it back to primary or at least a debate and then new election would be vastly different.
Very few people would use this making it the exact same as refusing to vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobody_for_President